Case clerk: AlexandrDmitri ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: David Fuchs ( Talk)
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
 |
|
|
| Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Active:
- AGK
- Courcelles
- David Fuchs
- Elen of the Roads
- Hersfold
- Jclemens
- Kirill Lokshin
- Newyorkbrad
- PhilKnight
- Roger Davies
Inactive:
- Risker
- SilkTork
- SirFozzie
- Xeno
Recused:
- Casliber
Under BRD there should be a bold edit, then one revert followed by discussion. Many edit wars occur when the bold editor (or another editor) reverts the revert instead of discussing it. I don't see how either 0RR or 1RR ensures that BRD process is followed. 0RR prevents anyone from reverting a bold edit so it remains in place (for 24 hours at least). 1RR allows one revert of a bold edit and then allows the bold editor one revert (of the revert) to restore the bold edit but disallows the initial reverter from reverting the bold restoration (since it would be the initial reverter's second revert). Under either 0RR or 1RR, the bold edit will remain and no discussion need occur - basically either a BRD (0RR) or a BRRD (1RR) process. I hope I am misunderstanding this, but if not, how would 0RR or 1RR policies help us in this case?
Joja
lozzo 00:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
0RR is inconsistent, 1RR is not; the discussion should take place beginning with the first revert. Either restriction gives an advantage (although often a temporary one) to new wording, as does 3RR; I believe that is intentional. JCScaliger ( talk) 01:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)- Ok. So we are mainly looking at 0RR or 1RR to reduce churning. These restrictions don't encourage BRD, though 1RR still allows for it. And 1RR doesn't address the main problem I have seen where the bold editor restores the reverted content instead of discussion.
Joja
lozzo 01:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
We should mostly look at it to reduce WP:OWN violations; banning the egregious WP:OWN violators is only a start, since all too many MOS regulars have picked up the same bad habits. No, they don't encourage BRD; that's why I've proposed 1RR if and only if the reverter discusses. JCScaliger ( talk) 03:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. So we are mainly looking at 0RR or 1RR to reduce churning. These restrictions don't encourage BRD, though 1RR still allows for it. And 1RR doesn't address the main problem I have seen where the bold editor restores the reverted content instead of discussion.
Joja
lozzo 01:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Several proposals are intended to prevent people from making up their own policy and then enforcing it everywhere. I don't think there is any substitute for stopping that problem at its source: watch policy and guideline pages, revert anything that's too bossy without sufficient consensus, and find enough like-minded editors to overcome any cliques. Rules that say policy isn't policy introduce a contradiction that could fuel endless debate about whether anything really means anything any more. Sure, policy should reflect consensus, but that's all the more reason to watch that policy to make sure it really does reflect consensus. Art LaPella ( talk) 02:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Too late. Much bossiness is already written in, and some editors will read bossiness into text which doesn't have it. The series of moves on capitalization are (quite literally) being justified by "Per WP:MOSCAPS" when the only relevant sentence to many of them is "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization".
- Once something is written into the enormous mass of MOS and its subpages, and has sat there for three to six months, the pedant who wrote it will claim that it "needs consensus to alter a guideline" and of course he will never consent. Two or three of these acting together, and we have - well - the present problem. JCScaliger ( talk) 20:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Note that MOS isn't Policy, any of it. I don't see any proposal to make it so; did its fans suspect that such a proposal would lead to having to show actual consensus for the text? JCScaliger ( talk) 20:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I believe its an even bigger problem that goes beyond MOS isn't policy, because much of what is actually in
WP:TITLE isn't policy either, its a bunch of conflicting "how to guidance and essay material" that lends itself to selective interpretation and gets invoked as policy. Combine that with multiple policy elements that in many cases result in intractable alternatives when alternatives are defended with different policy elements. Policy interpretation ought to be unequivocal while its application however is always contextual. The great majority of our policies function this way.
WP:CIVIL is unequivocal and easy to interpret--we don't tolerate uncivil behavior. How we deal with it and determining what is civil and what is uncivil is a contextual discussion, but the policy is clear. Other important policies can be seen in the same light--
WP:V,
WP:NPOV,
WP:OR, etc. The policy in these is unequivocal and easily interpreted while application is contextual. If we ever want
WP:TITLE to function as a clear statement of easily interpreted policy, we've got to rewrite it, because it doesn't function that way today. --
Mike Cline (
talk) 20:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
If you think that's a good idea, do suggest it on the talk page. I think TITLE does a fairly good joh of summarizing what RM dicussions actually look for (including Recognizability), and that much should be policy, informing the guidelines. But perhaps this will help get to A di M's mininal TiTLE, once the page is unprotected. JCScaliger ( talk) 21:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I believe its an even bigger problem that goes beyond MOS isn't policy, because much of what is actually in
WP:TITLE isn't policy either, its a bunch of conflicting "how to guidance and essay material" that lends itself to selective interpretation and gets invoked as policy. Combine that with multiple policy elements that in many cases result in intractable alternatives when alternatives are defended with different policy elements. Policy interpretation ought to be unequivocal while its application however is always contextual. The great majority of our policies function this way.
WP:CIVIL is unequivocal and easy to interpret--we don't tolerate uncivil behavior. How we deal with it and determining what is civil and what is uncivil is a contextual discussion, but the policy is clear. Other important policies can be seen in the same light--
WP:V,
WP:NPOV,
WP:OR, etc. The policy in these is unequivocal and easily interpreted while application is contextual. If we ever want
WP:TITLE to function as a clear statement of easily interpreted policy, we've got to rewrite it, because it doesn't function that way today. --
Mike Cline (
talk) 20:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Much bossiness is already written in". Sure; even MOS regulars are usually unaware of their own 1.4 megabytes of MOS including subpages. Let's fix it. If policies or MOS guidelines are unfixable, then we shouldn't have them. The worst of both worlds is to have policies and guidelines, and then insist that the newest elite are above them.
Art LaPella (
talk) 21:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm seeing your wistful comments as I scan through. It would be nice if MOS agreed with itself; it would be even nicer if this were not done by demanding that the subpages be rewritten every time that somebody wins a revert war on MOS. (See the bottom of WT:MOSCAPS for an example.) I have been reluctant to propose any such thing; there would be consensus among the regulars (except you) against it. But it would cut the Gordian knot. JCScaliger ( talk) 21:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Much bossiness is already written in". Sure; even MOS regulars are usually unaware of their own 1.4 megabytes of MOS including subpages. Let's fix it. If policies or MOS guidelines are unfixable, then we shouldn't have them. The worst of both worlds is to have policies and guidelines, and then insist that the newest elite are above them.
Art LaPella (
talk) 21:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved from workshop page by clerk -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 13:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
| Workshop proposals made by banned user. Proposals may be resubmitted by editors qualified to participate at their discretion. -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 13:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Proposed principlesNot legislation1) Wikipedia is not governed by statute: rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they should document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. When instruction creep is found to have occurred, it should be removed. While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies.
Guidelines2) The text of guidelines and policies should reflect consensus.
"No consensus"3) Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of " no consensus" or "not discussed" is not helpful
When to claim consensus4) The text of guidelines should not present a minority or strongly disputed view as if it were consensus.
Goal5) The goal in a consensus-building discussion is to reach a compromise which angers as few as possible.
The effect of stone-walling6) The mere retention of a text which angers more editors than actively defend it rarely constitutes consensus.
When there is no consensus7) When there is no consensus on guidance because there are two roughly equal parties who disagree, it is generally undesirable that either side's position be presented as if it were consensus. When consensus is established or demonstrated, stating it as guidance becomes desirable. Both sides are encouraged to bend over backwards to accommodate the other position, if possible; the other side will see it as little enough.
When there is no consensus (continued)7a) When there is no consensus on guidance because there are two substantially unequal parties, it is strongly undesirable that the minority's position be presented as consensus. If the majority can agree to some acknowledgement or accommodation of the minority position, this is more likely to be a stable consensus than retaining the majority's position unaltered, but there are clear exceptions: This is not intended to encourage the inclusion of fringe views, and there are times when Wikipedia must decide whether to tolerate some practice or to discourage it.
Both are often possibleThe Manual of Style can, as one solution, agree to tolerate either of two styles, as it does with Anglo-American spelling or the serial comma. Consistency on such points within articles is generally desirable.
The purpose of policyThe reason Wikipedia has policy pages at all is to store up assertions on which we agree, and which generally convince people when we make them in talk, so we don't have to write them out again and again. This is why policy pages aren't "enforced", but quoted; if people aren't convinced by what policy pages say, they should usually say something else. The major exception to this stability is when some small group, either in good faith or in an effort to become the Secret Masters of Wikipedia, mistakes its own opinions for What Everybody Thinks. This happens, and the clique often writes its own opinions up as policy and guideline pages.
No consensusIf there is no consensus as to existing policy, then it no longer reflects that and should be removed.
Template{text of Proposed principle}
Template{text of Proposed principle}
Proposed findings of factReliable sources vary1) The questions at issue in this case are ones on which reliable sources vary.
Usage2) Reliable style guides base their recommendations on how people actually write English.
Whim3) MOS is frequently written on the basis of some editor's personal prejudices.
"Familiarity" is and was consensusSome language including the idea of "familiarity" was, and is, consensus at WP:TITLE.
Noetica rewrites policy on consensus.2) Noetica has rewritten Wikipedia policy on consensus to suit his views.
Noetica revert warsNoetica revert wars on policies and guidelines, often without discussion.
Dicklyon revert warsDicklyon revert wars on policies and guidelines, often in support of Noetica, or for leverage in current discussions.
Closely knit cliqueTony, Noetica, and Dicklyon form a closely knit clique of editors, often at odds with other editors.
Overwrought and abusive languageTony, Noetica, and Dicklyon use overwrought and abusive language.
Tony, Noetica, and Dicklyon don't play well with othersTony, Noetica, and Dicklyon have quarrelled with several editors.
Kotniski's edit of 2009Kotniski's edit of the sentence on capitalization in WP:TITLE in October 2009 has been accepted by consensus. No evidence has been presented of lack of consensus.
Dicklyon's pollWhile this case was open, Dicklyon created a third poll at WP:TITLE, a week after the second. This omitted the wording which had been consensus in the others; the only mention of familiarity was in a proposal (which Dicklyon called Post-Modern), which was his own wording, never proposed by anybody else.
Dicklyon refactoringDicklyon refactored JCScaliger's edit without asking, and declined to restore it when asked. The complete story is here.
Noetica refactoringNoetica edited Born2cycle's edits several times, without his consent, and over his protests. Dicklyon helped.
I do not follow the last post linked to; but it seems clear that it has much to do with Noetica and Dicklyon failing to prevent B2C from quoting other editors as agreeing with him. More intervention by self-appointed Presiding Officers. JCScaliger ( talk) 00:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Template
Template
Proposed remediesNote: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated. Lock 'em down1) WP:TITLE and all of WP:MOS (all pages bearing the {{ style-guideline}} will be fully protected for a year. At the end of the year, amendments to this Arbcom decision suggesting what to do then are welcome.
General sanctions2) Wikipedia:Article titles and all pages composing WP:MOS are under probation. A rule of WP:1RR shall be enforced on them. Since we have an interest in avoiding stalemate, this is intended to restrict exact reversions; novel wording is one road to compromise. Since these are pages of wide interest, admins shall take not to impose sanctions on editors unaware of this ruling. All participants in this case can be assumed to know about them.
General sanctions, continued2a) Wikipedia:Article titles and all pages composing WP:MOS are under probation. Exact reversions without prompt and substantive discussion on the talk page are prohibited; admins may waive this in cases of obvious vandalism, although noting the vandalism and the reversion on the talk page are encouraged. Since these are pages of wide interest, admins shall take not to impose sanctions on editors unaware of this ruling. All participants in this case can be assumed to know about them.
When there is no consensus3) When there are two or more roughly equal opinions on a matter of style, and there is no consensus which includes them, the Manual of Style and its subpages shall either state that there are several ways to do it, or be silent on the question until consensus language [with appropriately wide support 21:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)] can be achieved.
No great swathes of edits4)The practice of systematically editing or moving large numbers of articles in order to bring them into compliance with the Manual of Style has caused repeated controversies on Wikipedia, especially when objections to a particular series of edits have been ignored. If such a series of edits educes protest, it should cease.
Individual sanctionsBorn2cycle verbose1) Born2cycle is reminded that brevity is the soul of wit. He is strongly urged to be shorter in his posts by all means, including links to his own pages; it's more readable, and more readable is more persuasive.
Noetica verbose2) Noetica is reminded that brevity is the soul of wit. He is strongly urged to be shorter in his posts by all means, including links to his own pages; it's more readable, and more readable is more persuasive.
RefactoringDicklyon and Noetica are forbidden from editing another user's post in any kind of discussion, unless the other editor consents to that particular change beforehand. Unquestionable cases of vandalism are excluded.
Exemplary sanctionNoetica is banned from editing policy pages, guideline pages, and their talkpages, for six months.
Kwami advisedKwamikagami is counselled to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest.
Template
Proposed enforcementTemplate1) {text of proposed enforcement}
Template2) {text of proposed enforcement}
|
Discussion
- I may be a little dense here, but who specifically is the banned user? --
Mike Cline (
talk) 15:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you look at
User talk:JCScaliger, he's been banned as a illegitimate alternative account of
User:Pmanderson, used to circumvent his topic ban.
WormTT · (
talk) 15:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Worm, thanks I had just figured it out. The only question I have given the fact that JSCScaliger has been given an indefinite Block, not a Ban decision. Does the same logic apply to a blocked user? If a user is blocked (not banned) after participating in a discussion, do we still retroactively remove their contributions from the discussion? Its just a point of clarification for me, no judgement whatever on the actions taken. Thanks -- Mike Cline ( talk) 15:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you look at
User talk:JCScaliger, he's been banned as a illegitimate alternative account of
User:Pmanderson, used to circumvent his topic ban.
WormTT · (
talk) 15:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see any investigation corresponding to this ban. Mangoe ( talk) 15:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict)From what I understand, the information has been removed because Pmanderson was topic banned from discussions on MOS topics, and is now currently blocked for 1 year for evading that topic ban. So whilst in normal circumstances, if a user is blocked, we don't retroactively remove contributions, Pmanderson was already banned on that topic... if that makes sense. I also believe there is precedent for this in the MickMacNee case. Hope that helps. WormTT · ( talk) 15:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- All I see is that someone, out of the blue, blocked JCScaliger. Where was it determined that the two accounts are the same person?
Mangoe (
talk) 15:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict)Well, answering your previous question, the topic ban discussion on Pmanderson can be found here. As for where it was determined, I don't have that information - Arbitrator Elen of the Roads blocked both accounts, [3] [4], specifically stating that you can contact her for more details and that the issue was highlighted by email. WormTT · ( talk) 15:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- All I see is that someone, out of the blue, blocked JCScaliger. Where was it determined that the two accounts are the same person?
Mangoe (
talk) 15:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Worm, thanks. Makes perfect sense. Confusion could have been avoided by making that a bit clearer in the template heading or a short paragraph within the template explaining the move. The edit summary just didn't get the message across. --
Mike Cline (
talk) 15:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Will keep that in mind for the future!
WormTT · (
talk) 15:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Mea culpa: Having hatted JCScalinger's statement, evidence and workshop proposals, and moved the latter here, I got called away before I had time to post a summary.
- The Arbitration Committee were made aware of the use of Pmanderson using the JCScalinger account in order to circumvent their ban. Elen of the Roads performed the investigation and blocked the JCScalinger and Pmanderson accounts in her capacity as the admin who imposed the initial ban on JSCcalinger; this is not a block imposed by the Arbitration Committee.
- In answer to Mike Cline's question about material from a blocked user, the answer is that it is not retroactively struck or moved. In this instance, the topic ban was in place long before the case was opened, and material from sock puppets of banned users is routinely removed from various areas of Wikipedia. -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 16:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Will keep that in mind for the future!
WormTT · (
talk) 15:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Worm, thanks. Makes perfect sense. Confusion could have been avoided by making that a bit clearer in the template heading or a short paragraph within the template explaining the move. The edit summary just didn't get the message across. --
Mike Cline (
talk) 15:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
What is the policy for handling the banned user's comments in other parties' sections? Joja lozzo 20:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Given the extent of the comments and that the arbitrators are all aware of the sock puppetry, it makes little sense to strike or refactor them, and would probably make matters even more confusing. In any case, I have merely collapsed material or struck it, though with hindsight, the striking of comments on this talkpage probably served little purpose. Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 20:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Is the Workshop closed or not? The closure date is listed as Feb 19, but I see people continue to make edits all day today. Has there been an extension? I intended to contribute more, but didn't have time. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 01:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please see my statement in the section immediately below. I trust it clarifies the situation. AGK [•] 18:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I am the lead drafting arbitrator for this case, and have a statement for the parties and contributors to this case. No acknowledgement is necessary, but if you have enquiries or suggestions you are very welcome to post them in this section.
I had planned from the beginning to hold a two-week Workshop for this case, and to this end I have amended the case schedule. The Workshop will now end on 26 February 2012. When the workshop phase closes, the page will be protected in the same way as the Evidence phase has already been. I intend to post a preliminary evaluation of the dispute on Sunday (see below), an outline of the proposed decision on Tuesday (see below), and then the draft decision on Thursday (see below). Although workshop proposals submitted by Sunday 26 February will be taken into account in the draft decision, in order to prevent last-minute changes in the preliminary draft, and the possible inclusion of proposals not mentioned in the evaluation or the outline, I ask the parties to submit their workshop proposals, if possible, before Sunday.
Thank you, AGK [•] 18:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Today was the first opportunity I had to visit WP and take the time to respond since Noetica made his comments to the evidence analysis section on the 24th. This is why my response to that is a day late, which I just realized. I'm sorry about that, and I hope it's okay. I wouldn't object if Noetica or anyone else wanted to respond to what I posted today. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 19:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Noetica responded, including bringing up the case of Talk:Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts), which is a good example, so I responded to that too. Hope that's okay. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations, Born2cycle. You got the last word! As I composed my reply the page was closed and protected. Here is that reply:
- Yes indeed. Let that whole case be examined closely. Similarly to what you have twice done here, you requested that the closing admin (Mike Cline) re-open the RM. You had completely ignored it while it was open, and extended, for more than two weeks. In an amazing concession, Mike Cline did re-open it for you. You posted more than once, including what I quote and analyse above. Admins who are themselves experts in assessing RMs weighed in and agreed with my view, and disagreed with yours. Undaunted, you later contested the result at length after the second closure – which confirmed the result of the first. Some of that tendentiousness is at the talkpage; a huge slab of it is at the closing admin's talkpage; and another typically oversize spin-off can be found at WP:AN, where it forms part of an even lengthier section that addresses your disruptive interactions with admins.
- The central question is not what is "right" in the case; it is your absolute certainty that you are right, and that any disagreement must be dismissed. Let that be examined, by all means.
- I have asked AGK to close this Workshop page. The time was already extended; and while everyone else managed to interrupt their lives to meet the new advertised deadline, you alone came in with an extended submission well outside the limit. Please stop, so that others can also. Let the case proceed as advertised.
I am happy for that reply to sit here, and not on the Workshop page. But I will draw it to the attention of AGK, so that no one imagines there was no good answer to what you posted at the last minute, so long after the extended deadline.
My preference is to leave all this alone now. There are lives to live. Let's leave the Arbitrators to deliberate.
Noetica Tea? 23:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have a supplementary announcement regarding scheduling, which is timed well to follow your comment about arbitrator deliberations and real-life :). Due to my real-life busyness, I regret I will not have time to publish a preliminary assessment of the dispute. However, I am happy to post the proposed decision to this page for review - in advance (by about two days) of the beginning of voting. I hope this is satisfactory, and please accept my apologies for the delay. If there are any questions in the interim, please contact me or another drafter.
AGK
[•] 15:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anthony has indicated that real-world concerns are consuming his time, so I'm soldiering on without him. I plan on posting part or all of the draft PD to the workshop at the beginning of next week, and posting to the decision page by the end of the week; the PD decision date in the casenav has been updated accordingly (although I'm hoping to beat it by a day or two.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 00:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Clerks, feel free to delete this if inappropriate.
Is it acceptable to use arb cases as rationales for winning a content dispute? Noetica thinks that the policy should read Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of " no consensus" or "not discussed" is not helpful, except possibly if the edit being reverted created a change in prescribed practice (as on policy and guideline pages), since such a change would need to have wide consensus to be valid. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Sarek:
Born2cycle:
Dicklyon:
Noetica Tea? 00:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Dicklyon, whether there is consensus for a given edit to a policy change may certainly be questioned. But if one goes so far as reverting a change, then that is asserting either that the lack of consensus is well known, or at least the person reverting has reason to oppose the change. Therefore the revert can and should be accompanied with a clarification of which it is. If commentary on the talk page or elsewhere clearly shows consensus is in opposition, then point it out. If there is no such evidence, then at least explain why you oppose it so those reasons can be discussed. Either is helpful. But simply asserting "no consensus" is not helpful; at all.This again is central to what our dispute was about at WP:AT which is a subject of this Arbcom case. There, you, Noetica and Tony repeatedly reverted the Kotniski wording without either establishing that consensus opposed it (indeed the opposite was true), or explaining what your substantive objection to it was. That's not building consensus. That's not behaving in collegial manner at all. That's the problem, and you and Noetica obviously still don't get it. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 03:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
As a (relatively) disinterested onlooker, I can't help thinking that this continuing argumentation, days after the arbitration case was closed, is both hilarious and deeply sad, and itself disruptive. I'm convinced that this unstoppable squabbling serves only to undermine your own theses, and I suspect that if I were an arbitrator here I would be inclined to block each of you for insisting on continuing with this. Milkunderwood ( talk) 03:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
|
I'm not sure what the protocol is here, but I somehow missed this question from Jclemens and would like to answer it now. It was asked at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation/Workshop#Only_revert_for_substantive_reasons.
What's the justification for this? In the BRD cycle, while it might be best practice for the reverting editor to explain himself, the burden is really on the one making the contested change to justify it after being reverted. Jclemens ( talk) 07:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The situation I'm talking about is where the person making the change has justified it on the talk page (in this particular case, simultaneous to making the change, exactly as BRD recommends - "Try to make the edit and its explanation simultaneous"), but those opposed to the change revert, and then don't engage in substantive discussion about their objection. What then?
So, yes, the one making the change has the burden, but once that burden has been met, don't the reverters have some burden too? If not, then we pave the way for status quo stonewalling, which is what occurred at WP:AT, succeeding for over a month despite overwhelming consensus support for the change in question.
I hope that answers your question, as it is central to the problem here, in my view. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's not that the reasons for the revert were not clearly stated, just that you considered them "non-substantive". And you have to discount quite a few editors's objections before you can get to the "overwhelming consensus" that you claim. If I recall correctly, there were about 9 objecting editors by the end, even if we started with only 3.
Dicklyon (
talk) 00:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- The only "objections" were procedural (i.e., non-substantive), based on the argument that changes shouldn't be made that affect an ongoing dispute. Never mind that the "dispute" in question was so minor as to be inconsequential (it was a discussion at
WP:AT about one article's title and its recent unilateral move and revert), and that the policy wording "change" in question was actually restoration of longstanding language that was clearly removed inadvertently (or with so little conviction that none of those involved in the removal - a wording simplification effort - and the discussion about it bothered to weigh in about it even though they were notified about the revert of their removal).
There were zero non-procedural objections from the outset, and zero objections of any kind in Greg's poll about the same language a few weeks later.
AFAIK, no evidence of 9 objections was submitted in this case, nor even exists. Did I miss something? If there were 9 (or so) objections, why would Elen declare that a revert of the restoration of that wording would be seen as edit warring? If there was that kind of objection to it, I would have backed off from the outset. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 01:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- The only "objections" were procedural (i.e., non-substantive), based on the argument that changes shouldn't be made that affect an ongoing dispute. Never mind that the "dispute" in question was so minor as to be inconsequential (it was a discussion at
WP:AT about one article's title and its recent unilateral move and revert), and that the policy wording "change" in question was actually restoration of longstanding language that was clearly removed inadvertently (or with so little conviction that none of those involved in the removal - a wording simplification effort - and the discussion about it bothered to weigh in about it even though they were notified about the revert of their removal).
New evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by Dicklyon
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I think new evidence of battleground behavior by Dicklyon is relevant to this case because I believe I was originally reverted by Dicklyon
[5] at
WP:AT due to battleground behavior.
WP:BATTLEGROUND says: In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, do not make changes to content or policies just to prove a point to someone with whom you disagree. I believe I was originally reverted at
WP:AT by Dicklyon et al just for them "to prove a point to someone [me] with whom [they] disagree". That's difficult to prove, of course, but Dick's continued behavior shows a pattern. I believe he might not be aware of this. So, here's the new evidence. First, some background. There has been an ongoing RM discussion at Talk:Republic of China about moving it to Taiwan. The proposal was made on Feb 17. I contributed for the first time on March 4 as Support !vote #31 [6]. Before I contributed my !vote, I read the discussion, and noted that the vast majority of Support votes were based on WP:COMMONNAME, and that many of the oppose votes discounted the applicability of WP:COMMONNAME to this case (but, notably, not because they felt COMMONNAME applied equally to both names). I too based my !vote on COMMONNAME, and it was and remains my only contribution and comment to the discussion. In addition, I thought it was a case that might be of interest to some other editors who watch WP:AT, so I added a notice about it to WT:AT accordingly [7], characterizing it as a test case for COMMONNAME. I added that notice at 13:04, March 4, 2012. I had no intention of starting a discussion about this at WT:AT; it was just an FYI notice. But, to my surprise, within a few hours, at 16:36, Dicklyon did comment, taking issue with my characterization [8], arguing that it's not a good test case for common name since both names are common, and thus equally supportable by COMMONNAME. If someone else had made this point would he have responded the way he did? I don't think so, and I'm not the only one. N-HH ( talk · contribs) thought something similar in that he wrote, "But don't let (lack of) evidence get in the way of your taking sides in a dispute that you by your own admission know nothing about, simply on the basis it seems, not for the first time in my experience, of who you find on the one or other side of it (if you know nothing, how are you so sure "both names are very common"?)" [9]. But, whatever. We discussed it back and forth [10], others explained why it was a common name issue, and I figured that was that. But today I noted Dicklyon also commented about me at the RM discussion [11]. While he started with a general statement objecting "to those who claim it must be moved to satisfy WP:COMMONNAME", he continued with a direct attack on me: " the idea that the "most common" name has to be used has been pushed by one editor in particular ( User:Born2cycle), often against a lot of pushback." Now, again, I was support !vote #31. Of the 30 who !voted prior to me, 22 mentioned "common" in a context meaning common name, and most of those explicitly referenced WP:COMMONNAME. Most of the !votes refer to common name. No way did I make this about common name. The community obviously sees it that way. Dicklyon is in a minority (perhaps of one) that disagrees, but what does any of this have to do with me? I don't know what he means by "often against a lot of pushback" (unless he's referring to pushback from him), but I do know saying it was entirely inappropriate in this context. I mean, what is the point of isolating me in a negative light in an ocean of editors essentially making the same argument before I did? Isn't this kind of non sequitur attack on another editor with whom he has a history of disagreement the epitome of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior? Isn't the revert that started all this back on Dec 21 another example of this that lead to over a month of disruption on that page? For what? So he could revert an edit with practically unanimous consensus support simply because I made it? Am I out of line here? I really think he has a battleground issue with me that he might not be aware of. Any suggestions on how I might get him to stop battling me and start collaborating? By the way, suggestions that involve discussing this with him on his talk page won't work because attempts to work things out with him in the past have resulted in him asking me to stay off his talk page [12]. I know it's after the evidence and workshop deadlines, but can relevant evidence like this still be considered by Arbcom since it materialized during the case? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 06:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Point of orderI believe that a point of order may be appropriate here. I am now utterly confused as to the respective roles of the 'Evidence' and 'Workshop' pages. I thought that I had had a clear enough notion to begin with, in that 'Evidence' is focussed on identifying the problem and 'Workshop' is where potential solutions are developed through analysis of the Evidence and further discussion. But it now seems that either I have misunderstood the rules, or there is some abuse of the system taking place. B2C was late in submitting his 'evidence', and now, though the workshop phase was supposedly over, it's still going on like a ferocious tie-breaker is being fought, with exactly more of the battleground mentality and verbosity that seem to underly the entire case. Should not the correct action be to lock this section down as being past its sell-by date and an unproductive and a waste of time to boot? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 11:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
This is the kind of "response" that drives me nuts. As if? Which of my assertions are not true?
Do you not agree with any of this? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC) |
- Closed a thread that was not of significant value to this case.
AGK
[•] 22:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm so confused. If new evidence of ongoing behavior of the kind that caused the problems in this case in the first place, and discussion about that, is not "of significant value to this case", what are we doing here? --
Born2cycle (
talk) 03:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't say the issue is not of value to the case. I am saying that the discussion between you and Ohconfucius was a distraction from the case, and therefore served no value. For my part, by the time a dispute comes to arbitration I'm not very interested in what the parties have to say to one another.
AGK
[•] 12:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I just wanted to make an observation; I wasn't looking for a discussion with B2C on the issue, and was annoyed that he kept on keeping on. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't say the issue is not of value to the case. I am saying that the discussion between you and Ohconfucius was a distraction from the case, and therefore served no value. For my part, by the time a dispute comes to arbitration I'm not very interested in what the parties have to say to one another.
AGK
[•] 12:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm so confused. If new evidence of ongoing behavior of the kind that caused the problems in this case in the first place, and discussion about that, is not "of significant value to this case", what are we doing here? --
Born2cycle (
talk) 03:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is the issue I would like to see Arbcom address. There is evidence submitted for all of this:
- I made a relatively simple edit restoring the so-called Kotniski wording on the recognizability wording of WP:AT on Dec 21.
- I had good reason to believe this was consistent with consensus - and I explained all this on the talk page simultaneous to making the edit
- Despite all my efforts, the edit was reverted, but those reverting gave no reason to revert other than because I made the edit. Dicklyon even admitted to not reading the explanation prior to reverting.
- I and others tried to revert the reverts since the reverters provided no substantive reason to revert. But they reverted us again.
- Everyone else who chimed in supported the edit and explained why.
- Eventually the page was locked at the version without the Kotniski wording
- The "discussion" went on for over a month, the entire time the antagonists never participating substantively.
- Eventually there was a poll that showed, again, even more clearly than before, unanimous community support in favor of the Kotniski wording
- Finally, over a month later, under threat of block by Elen, the edit was made and no longer reverted
It would be one thing if that month of churn had some substantive discussion about the merits of the edit, and we had worked it out. But that wasn't the case at all. Those reverting -- Dicklyon, Tony1, and Noetica -- never submitted alternative wording, nor presented an argument against the Kotniski wording. It was all smoke and mirrors, for over a month. Kotniski became so frustrated with their behavior that he quit WP.
I too find this to be intolerable. If that wasn't disruption, nothing is. This is exactly the kind of baloney that is driving editors away.
Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 02:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Since we’re talking “nutshells,” here’s my 2¢ on this: Here in my city, some off-duty cop was driving drunk, hit someone, and then fled the scene. He was fired by the police. And he sued for back wages and damages, claiming that job stress led to his alcoholism, the city ignored his alcoholism, did nothing to treat him, alcoholism is a disability, the city must accommodate him with his disability, (yadda-yadda, political correctness ad nauseam, etcetera). Some sort of “Feel good about yourself” state committee backed him in his pursuit of scads of money. After a public outcry, the city council nixed the proposed settlement. During the debate over this (a unanimous decision), a city councilman said this:
| “ | Sometimes when you are losing, you have to know when to fold and walk away from the table. But on matters of principle, you fight until Hell freezes over… and then you fight on the ice. | ” |
- Dicklyon simply wanted his way and I am convinced he knew full well that he was simply playing a game of attrition whereby protracted intransigence was driving others away (or making them cave in exasperation) and if he could only overcome one last obstacle (Born2cycle), Dicklyon would finally get his way.
- Born2cycle on the other hand, was upholding the principle of “consensus” (it is, after all, enshrined at WP:Five pillars) and was willing to fight on the ice after Hell froze over. It takes two however, to fight on the ice and Dicklyon was clearly the other one—his “slice things differently” poll being a prime example. Born2cycle also didn’t seem to understand that *pithy* posts on Wikipedia are generally more effective than lengthy and detailed ones.
- Were it me, I’d merely ask the combatants if they’ve learned a lesson from any of this. Accept apologies, shoot any bastard who wants to keep mixing it up, and put an end to this. Greg L ( talk) 00:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- The larger problem is that the idea of attrition against consensus establishment at the MOS pages (recognizing that TITLE isn't MOS but the editor overlap is undeniable) is what started date delinking, and appears to exist through this day. (And to prevent echos of my previous comments on this, there are *so* many people involved, on both sides, in a manner that otherwise barely tickles any behavioral response issues that this is not to call out any specific person or group, but to recognize this has become a norm on certain MOS aspects). This is not to call what B2C and Dicklyon did as unactionable, but everyone that works on pages like MOS that have wide impact need to recognize that they aren't scripture and holding one's own (whether through attrition or demanding some type of consensus to be set) is harmful in the long run for something that is meant to be a guide. In other words, it is not the decision specifically about TITLE that should be considered the core of this case, but how such behavior in the long term is harmful to the MOS in general even if it is impossible to point specific problems with specific people, and how editors can figure out how to resolve it. -- MASEM ( t) 01:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Awwwwe… clever you, Masem. I think you can do better than suggest that “date delinking” is responsible for all modern instances on en.Wikipedia MOS where crops wither, midwives weep, and pestilence and plague spreads across the land. Try again. As can be seen at RfCs such as
this Date Linking RfC, a herculean effort was made to discern consensus and maximum effort expended to gain widespread input from the community. A bit of advise, MASEM: It’s been nearly four years since “date delinking”; if you try not to dredge up ancient and exceedingly tangential business and shoehorn it into an entirely different situation, your words might carry additional weight.
Greg L (
talk) 03:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Let me be clear: Date delinking wasn't the start of the problems, but it was an epitome of the problems that have only been intensifying on MOS related pages. I'm not considering the actual aspects of date delinking, only the behaviors that lead to the case. It's important to identity date delinking as related to this if only to avoid having to re-iterate the typical atmosphere of the MOS talk pages. It is not that the same people from date delinking are central to this case here, only that the same general trends in attitudes on both (or multiple) sides of the arguments continue to rear their heads at MOS-related pages. Arbcom at Date Delinking, however, made no attempt to correct across all of MOS, only on the issue of DD; the decisions suggested here to date are at least indicative of the larger problem of MOS beyond just TITLE. -- MASEM ( t) 05:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Awwwwe… clever you, Masem. I think you can do better than suggest that “date delinking” is responsible for all modern instances on en.Wikipedia MOS where crops wither, midwives weep, and pestilence and plague spreads across the land. Try again. As can be seen at RfCs such as
this Date Linking RfC, a herculean effort was made to discern consensus and maximum effort expended to gain widespread input from the community. A bit of advise, MASEM: It’s been nearly four years since “date delinking”; if you try not to dredge up ancient and exceedingly tangential business and shoehorn it into an entirely different situation, your words might carry additional weight.
Greg L (
talk) 03:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Case clerk: AlexandrDmitri ( Talk) Drafting arbitrator: David Fuchs ( Talk)
| Wikipedia Arbitration |
|---|
|
|
|
|
| Track related changes |
Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.
Active:
- AGK
- Courcelles
- David Fuchs
- Elen of the Roads
- Hersfold
- Jclemens
- Kirill Lokshin
- Newyorkbrad
- PhilKnight
- Roger Davies
Inactive:
- Risker
- SilkTork
- SirFozzie
- Xeno
Recused:
- Casliber
Under BRD there should be a bold edit, then one revert followed by discussion. Many edit wars occur when the bold editor (or another editor) reverts the revert instead of discussing it. I don't see how either 0RR or 1RR ensures that BRD process is followed. 0RR prevents anyone from reverting a bold edit so it remains in place (for 24 hours at least). 1RR allows one revert of a bold edit and then allows the bold editor one revert (of the revert) to restore the bold edit but disallows the initial reverter from reverting the bold restoration (since it would be the initial reverter's second revert). Under either 0RR or 1RR, the bold edit will remain and no discussion need occur - basically either a BRD (0RR) or a BRRD (1RR) process. I hope I am misunderstanding this, but if not, how would 0RR or 1RR policies help us in this case?
Joja
lozzo 00:03, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
0RR is inconsistent, 1RR is not; the discussion should take place beginning with the first revert. Either restriction gives an advantage (although often a temporary one) to new wording, as does 3RR; I believe that is intentional. JCScaliger ( talk) 01:02, 3 February 2012 (UTC)- Ok. So we are mainly looking at 0RR or 1RR to reduce churning. These restrictions don't encourage BRD, though 1RR still allows for it. And 1RR doesn't address the main problem I have seen where the bold editor restores the reverted content instead of discussion.
Joja
lozzo 01:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
We should mostly look at it to reduce WP:OWN violations; banning the egregious WP:OWN violators is only a start, since all too many MOS regulars have picked up the same bad habits. No, they don't encourage BRD; that's why I've proposed 1RR if and only if the reverter discusses. JCScaliger ( talk) 03:17, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok. So we are mainly looking at 0RR or 1RR to reduce churning. These restrictions don't encourage BRD, though 1RR still allows for it. And 1RR doesn't address the main problem I have seen where the bold editor restores the reverted content instead of discussion.
Joja
lozzo 01:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Several proposals are intended to prevent people from making up their own policy and then enforcing it everywhere. I don't think there is any substitute for stopping that problem at its source: watch policy and guideline pages, revert anything that's too bossy without sufficient consensus, and find enough like-minded editors to overcome any cliques. Rules that say policy isn't policy introduce a contradiction that could fuel endless debate about whether anything really means anything any more. Sure, policy should reflect consensus, but that's all the more reason to watch that policy to make sure it really does reflect consensus. Art LaPella ( talk) 02:27, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Too late. Much bossiness is already written in, and some editors will read bossiness into text which doesn't have it. The series of moves on capitalization are (quite literally) being justified by "Per WP:MOSCAPS" when the only relevant sentence to many of them is "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization".
- Once something is written into the enormous mass of MOS and its subpages, and has sat there for three to six months, the pedant who wrote it will claim that it "needs consensus to alter a guideline" and of course he will never consent. Two or three of these acting together, and we have - well - the present problem. JCScaliger ( talk) 20:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Note that MOS isn't Policy, any of it. I don't see any proposal to make it so; did its fans suspect that such a proposal would lead to having to show actual consensus for the text? JCScaliger ( talk) 20:26, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I believe its an even bigger problem that goes beyond MOS isn't policy, because much of what is actually in
WP:TITLE isn't policy either, its a bunch of conflicting "how to guidance and essay material" that lends itself to selective interpretation and gets invoked as policy. Combine that with multiple policy elements that in many cases result in intractable alternatives when alternatives are defended with different policy elements. Policy interpretation ought to be unequivocal while its application however is always contextual. The great majority of our policies function this way.
WP:CIVIL is unequivocal and easy to interpret--we don't tolerate uncivil behavior. How we deal with it and determining what is civil and what is uncivil is a contextual discussion, but the policy is clear. Other important policies can be seen in the same light--
WP:V,
WP:NPOV,
WP:OR, etc. The policy in these is unequivocal and easily interpreted while application is contextual. If we ever want
WP:TITLE to function as a clear statement of easily interpreted policy, we've got to rewrite it, because it doesn't function that way today. --
Mike Cline (
talk) 20:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
If you think that's a good idea, do suggest it on the talk page. I think TITLE does a fairly good joh of summarizing what RM dicussions actually look for (including Recognizability), and that much should be policy, informing the guidelines. But perhaps this will help get to A di M's mininal TiTLE, once the page is unprotected. JCScaliger ( talk) 21:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- I believe its an even bigger problem that goes beyond MOS isn't policy, because much of what is actually in
WP:TITLE isn't policy either, its a bunch of conflicting "how to guidance and essay material" that lends itself to selective interpretation and gets invoked as policy. Combine that with multiple policy elements that in many cases result in intractable alternatives when alternatives are defended with different policy elements. Policy interpretation ought to be unequivocal while its application however is always contextual. The great majority of our policies function this way.
WP:CIVIL is unequivocal and easy to interpret--we don't tolerate uncivil behavior. How we deal with it and determining what is civil and what is uncivil is a contextual discussion, but the policy is clear. Other important policies can be seen in the same light--
WP:V,
WP:NPOV,
WP:OR, etc. The policy in these is unequivocal and easily interpreted while application is contextual. If we ever want
WP:TITLE to function as a clear statement of easily interpreted policy, we've got to rewrite it, because it doesn't function that way today. --
Mike Cline (
talk) 20:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Much bossiness is already written in". Sure; even MOS regulars are usually unaware of their own 1.4 megabytes of MOS including subpages. Let's fix it. If policies or MOS guidelines are unfixable, then we shouldn't have them. The worst of both worlds is to have policies and guidelines, and then insist that the newest elite are above them.
Art LaPella (
talk) 21:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I'm seeing your wistful comments as I scan through. It would be nice if MOS agreed with itself; it would be even nicer if this were not done by demanding that the subpages be rewritten every time that somebody wins a revert war on MOS. (See the bottom of WT:MOSCAPS for an example.) I have been reluctant to propose any such thing; there would be consensus among the regulars (except you) against it. But it would cut the Gordian knot. JCScaliger ( talk) 21:23, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
- "Much bossiness is already written in". Sure; even MOS regulars are usually unaware of their own 1.4 megabytes of MOS including subpages. Let's fix it. If policies or MOS guidelines are unfixable, then we shouldn't have them. The worst of both worlds is to have policies and guidelines, and then insist that the newest elite are above them.
Art LaPella (
talk) 21:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved from workshop page by clerk -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 13:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
| Workshop proposals made by banned user. Proposals may be resubmitted by editors qualified to participate at their discretion. -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 13:46, 9 February 2012 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Proposed principlesNot legislation1) Wikipedia is not governed by statute: rules are not the purpose of the community. Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice. Rather, they should document already existing community consensus regarding what should be accepted and what should be rejected. When instruction creep is found to have occurred, it should be removed. While Wikipedia's written policies and guidelines should be taken seriously, they can be misused. Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies.
Guidelines2) The text of guidelines and policies should reflect consensus.
"No consensus"3) Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of " no consensus" or "not discussed" is not helpful
When to claim consensus4) The text of guidelines should not present a minority or strongly disputed view as if it were consensus.
Goal5) The goal in a consensus-building discussion is to reach a compromise which angers as few as possible.
The effect of stone-walling6) The mere retention of a text which angers more editors than actively defend it rarely constitutes consensus.
When there is no consensus7) When there is no consensus on guidance because there are two roughly equal parties who disagree, it is generally undesirable that either side's position be presented as if it were consensus. When consensus is established or demonstrated, stating it as guidance becomes desirable. Both sides are encouraged to bend over backwards to accommodate the other position, if possible; the other side will see it as little enough.
When there is no consensus (continued)7a) When there is no consensus on guidance because there are two substantially unequal parties, it is strongly undesirable that the minority's position be presented as consensus. If the majority can agree to some acknowledgement or accommodation of the minority position, this is more likely to be a stable consensus than retaining the majority's position unaltered, but there are clear exceptions: This is not intended to encourage the inclusion of fringe views, and there are times when Wikipedia must decide whether to tolerate some practice or to discourage it.
Both are often possibleThe Manual of Style can, as one solution, agree to tolerate either of two styles, as it does with Anglo-American spelling or the serial comma. Consistency on such points within articles is generally desirable.
The purpose of policyThe reason Wikipedia has policy pages at all is to store up assertions on which we agree, and which generally convince people when we make them in talk, so we don't have to write them out again and again. This is why policy pages aren't "enforced", but quoted; if people aren't convinced by what policy pages say, they should usually say something else. The major exception to this stability is when some small group, either in good faith or in an effort to become the Secret Masters of Wikipedia, mistakes its own opinions for What Everybody Thinks. This happens, and the clique often writes its own opinions up as policy and guideline pages.
No consensusIf there is no consensus as to existing policy, then it no longer reflects that and should be removed.
Template{text of Proposed principle}
Template{text of Proposed principle}
Proposed findings of factReliable sources vary1) The questions at issue in this case are ones on which reliable sources vary.
Usage2) Reliable style guides base their recommendations on how people actually write English.
Whim3) MOS is frequently written on the basis of some editor's personal prejudices.
"Familiarity" is and was consensusSome language including the idea of "familiarity" was, and is, consensus at WP:TITLE.
Noetica rewrites policy on consensus.2) Noetica has rewritten Wikipedia policy on consensus to suit his views.
Noetica revert warsNoetica revert wars on policies and guidelines, often without discussion.
Dicklyon revert warsDicklyon revert wars on policies and guidelines, often in support of Noetica, or for leverage in current discussions.
Closely knit cliqueTony, Noetica, and Dicklyon form a closely knit clique of editors, often at odds with other editors.
Overwrought and abusive languageTony, Noetica, and Dicklyon use overwrought and abusive language.
Tony, Noetica, and Dicklyon don't play well with othersTony, Noetica, and Dicklyon have quarrelled with several editors.
Kotniski's edit of 2009Kotniski's edit of the sentence on capitalization in WP:TITLE in October 2009 has been accepted by consensus. No evidence has been presented of lack of consensus.
Dicklyon's pollWhile this case was open, Dicklyon created a third poll at WP:TITLE, a week after the second. This omitted the wording which had been consensus in the others; the only mention of familiarity was in a proposal (which Dicklyon called Post-Modern), which was his own wording, never proposed by anybody else.
Dicklyon refactoringDicklyon refactored JCScaliger's edit without asking, and declined to restore it when asked. The complete story is here.
Noetica refactoringNoetica edited Born2cycle's edits several times, without his consent, and over his protests. Dicklyon helped.
I do not follow the last post linked to; but it seems clear that it has much to do with Noetica and Dicklyon failing to prevent B2C from quoting other editors as agreeing with him. More intervention by self-appointed Presiding Officers. JCScaliger ( talk) 00:31, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Template
Template
Proposed remediesNote: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated. Lock 'em down1) WP:TITLE and all of WP:MOS (all pages bearing the {{ style-guideline}} will be fully protected for a year. At the end of the year, amendments to this Arbcom decision suggesting what to do then are welcome.
General sanctions2) Wikipedia:Article titles and all pages composing WP:MOS are under probation. A rule of WP:1RR shall be enforced on them. Since we have an interest in avoiding stalemate, this is intended to restrict exact reversions; novel wording is one road to compromise. Since these are pages of wide interest, admins shall take not to impose sanctions on editors unaware of this ruling. All participants in this case can be assumed to know about them.
General sanctions, continued2a) Wikipedia:Article titles and all pages composing WP:MOS are under probation. Exact reversions without prompt and substantive discussion on the talk page are prohibited; admins may waive this in cases of obvious vandalism, although noting the vandalism and the reversion on the talk page are encouraged. Since these are pages of wide interest, admins shall take not to impose sanctions on editors unaware of this ruling. All participants in this case can be assumed to know about them.
When there is no consensus3) When there are two or more roughly equal opinions on a matter of style, and there is no consensus which includes them, the Manual of Style and its subpages shall either state that there are several ways to do it, or be silent on the question until consensus language [with appropriately wide support 21:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)] can be achieved.
No great swathes of edits4)The practice of systematically editing or moving large numbers of articles in order to bring them into compliance with the Manual of Style has caused repeated controversies on Wikipedia, especially when objections to a particular series of edits have been ignored. If such a series of edits educes protest, it should cease.
Individual sanctionsBorn2cycle verbose1) Born2cycle is reminded that brevity is the soul of wit. He is strongly urged to be shorter in his posts by all means, including links to his own pages; it's more readable, and more readable is more persuasive.
Noetica verbose2) Noetica is reminded that brevity is the soul of wit. He is strongly urged to be shorter in his posts by all means, including links to his own pages; it's more readable, and more readable is more persuasive.
RefactoringDicklyon and Noetica are forbidden from editing another user's post in any kind of discussion, unless the other editor consents to that particular change beforehand. Unquestionable cases of vandalism are excluded.
Exemplary sanctionNoetica is banned from editing policy pages, guideline pages, and their talkpages, for six months.
Kwami advisedKwamikagami is counselled to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest.
Template
Proposed enforcementTemplate1) {text of proposed enforcement}
Template2) {text of proposed enforcement}
|
Discussion
- I may be a little dense here, but who specifically is the banned user? --
Mike Cline (
talk) 15:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you look at
User talk:JCScaliger, he's been banned as a illegitimate alternative account of
User:Pmanderson, used to circumvent his topic ban.
WormTT · (
talk) 15:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Worm, thanks I had just figured it out. The only question I have given the fact that JSCScaliger has been given an indefinite Block, not a Ban decision. Does the same logic apply to a blocked user? If a user is blocked (not banned) after participating in a discussion, do we still retroactively remove their contributions from the discussion? Its just a point of clarification for me, no judgement whatever on the actions taken. Thanks -- Mike Cline ( talk) 15:13, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- If you look at
User talk:JCScaliger, he's been banned as a illegitimate alternative account of
User:Pmanderson, used to circumvent his topic ban.
WormTT · (
talk) 15:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see any investigation corresponding to this ban. Mangoe ( talk) 15:30, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict)From what I understand, the information has been removed because Pmanderson was topic banned from discussions on MOS topics, and is now currently blocked for 1 year for evading that topic ban. So whilst in normal circumstances, if a user is blocked, we don't retroactively remove contributions, Pmanderson was already banned on that topic... if that makes sense. I also believe there is precedent for this in the MickMacNee case. Hope that helps. WormTT · ( talk) 15:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- All I see is that someone, out of the blue, blocked JCScaliger. Where was it determined that the two accounts are the same person?
Mangoe (
talk) 15:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- ( edit conflict)Well, answering your previous question, the topic ban discussion on Pmanderson can be found here. As for where it was determined, I don't have that information - Arbitrator Elen of the Roads blocked both accounts, [3] [4], specifically stating that you can contact her for more details and that the issue was highlighted by email. WormTT · ( talk) 15:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- All I see is that someone, out of the blue, blocked JCScaliger. Where was it determined that the two accounts are the same person?
Mangoe (
talk) 15:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Worm, thanks. Makes perfect sense. Confusion could have been avoided by making that a bit clearer in the template heading or a short paragraph within the template explaining the move. The edit summary just didn't get the message across. --
Mike Cline (
talk) 15:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Will keep that in mind for the future!
WormTT · (
talk) 15:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Mea culpa: Having hatted JCScalinger's statement, evidence and workshop proposals, and moved the latter here, I got called away before I had time to post a summary.
- The Arbitration Committee were made aware of the use of Pmanderson using the JCScalinger account in order to circumvent their ban. Elen of the Roads performed the investigation and blocked the JCScalinger and Pmanderson accounts in her capacity as the admin who imposed the initial ban on JSCcalinger; this is not a block imposed by the Arbitration Committee.
- In answer to Mike Cline's question about material from a blocked user, the answer is that it is not retroactively struck or moved. In this instance, the topic ban was in place long before the case was opened, and material from sock puppets of banned users is routinely removed from various areas of Wikipedia. -- Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 16:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Will keep that in mind for the future!
WormTT · (
talk) 15:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Worm, thanks. Makes perfect sense. Confusion could have been avoided by making that a bit clearer in the template heading or a short paragraph within the template explaining the move. The edit summary just didn't get the message across. --
Mike Cline (
talk) 15:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
What is the policy for handling the banned user's comments in other parties' sections? Joja lozzo 20:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Given the extent of the comments and that the arbitrators are all aware of the sock puppetry, it makes little sense to strike or refactor them, and would probably make matters even more confusing. In any case, I have merely collapsed material or struck it, though with hindsight, the striking of comments on this talkpage probably served little purpose. Alexandr Dmitri ( talk) 20:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Is the Workshop closed or not? The closure date is listed as Feb 19, but I see people continue to make edits all day today. Has there been an extension? I intended to contribute more, but didn't have time. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 01:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please see my statement in the section immediately below. I trust it clarifies the situation. AGK [•] 18:40, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I am the lead drafting arbitrator for this case, and have a statement for the parties and contributors to this case. No acknowledgement is necessary, but if you have enquiries or suggestions you are very welcome to post them in this section.
I had planned from the beginning to hold a two-week Workshop for this case, and to this end I have amended the case schedule. The Workshop will now end on 26 February 2012. When the workshop phase closes, the page will be protected in the same way as the Evidence phase has already been. I intend to post a preliminary evaluation of the dispute on Sunday (see below), an outline of the proposed decision on Tuesday (see below), and then the draft decision on Thursday (see below). Although workshop proposals submitted by Sunday 26 February will be taken into account in the draft decision, in order to prevent last-minute changes in the preliminary draft, and the possible inclusion of proposals not mentioned in the evaluation or the outline, I ask the parties to submit their workshop proposals, if possible, before Sunday.
Thank you, AGK [•] 18:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
- Today was the first opportunity I had to visit WP and take the time to respond since Noetica made his comments to the evidence analysis section on the 24th. This is why my response to that is a day late, which I just realized. I'm sorry about that, and I hope it's okay. I wouldn't object if Noetica or anyone else wanted to respond to what I posted today. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 19:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Noetica responded, including bringing up the case of Talk:Catholic Memorial School (West Roxbury, Massachusetts), which is a good example, so I responded to that too. Hope that's okay. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations, Born2cycle. You got the last word! As I composed my reply the page was closed and protected. Here is that reply:
- Yes indeed. Let that whole case be examined closely. Similarly to what you have twice done here, you requested that the closing admin (Mike Cline) re-open the RM. You had completely ignored it while it was open, and extended, for more than two weeks. In an amazing concession, Mike Cline did re-open it for you. You posted more than once, including what I quote and analyse above. Admins who are themselves experts in assessing RMs weighed in and agreed with my view, and disagreed with yours. Undaunted, you later contested the result at length after the second closure – which confirmed the result of the first. Some of that tendentiousness is at the talkpage; a huge slab of it is at the closing admin's talkpage; and another typically oversize spin-off can be found at WP:AN, where it forms part of an even lengthier section that addresses your disruptive interactions with admins.
- The central question is not what is "right" in the case; it is your absolute certainty that you are right, and that any disagreement must be dismissed. Let that be examined, by all means.
- I have asked AGK to close this Workshop page. The time was already extended; and while everyone else managed to interrupt their lives to meet the new advertised deadline, you alone came in with an extended submission well outside the limit. Please stop, so that others can also. Let the case proceed as advertised.
I am happy for that reply to sit here, and not on the Workshop page. But I will draw it to the attention of AGK, so that no one imagines there was no good answer to what you posted at the last minute, so long after the extended deadline.
My preference is to leave all this alone now. There are lives to live. Let's leave the Arbitrators to deliberate.
Noetica Tea? 23:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- I have a supplementary announcement regarding scheduling, which is timed well to follow your comment about arbitrator deliberations and real-life :). Due to my real-life busyness, I regret I will not have time to publish a preliminary assessment of the dispute. However, I am happy to post the proposed decision to this page for review - in advance (by about two days) of the beginning of voting. I hope this is satisfactory, and please accept my apologies for the delay. If there are any questions in the interim, please contact me or another drafter.
AGK
[•] 15:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anthony has indicated that real-world concerns are consuming his time, so I'm soldiering on without him. I plan on posting part or all of the draft PD to the workshop at the beginning of next week, and posting to the decision page by the end of the week; the PD decision date in the casenav has been updated accordingly (although I'm hoping to beat it by a day or two.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs( talk) 00:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Clerks, feel free to delete this if inappropriate.
Is it acceptable to use arb cases as rationales for winning a content dispute? Noetica thinks that the policy should read Unless a discussion regarding a claim of "no consensus" is undertaken on the discussion page, an edit summary of " no consensus" or "not discussed" is not helpful, except possibly if the edit being reverted created a change in prescribed practice (as on policy and guideline pages), since such a change would need to have wide consensus to be valid. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Sarek:
Born2cycle:
Dicklyon:
Noetica Tea? 00:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC) Dicklyon, whether there is consensus for a given edit to a policy change may certainly be questioned. But if one goes so far as reverting a change, then that is asserting either that the lack of consensus is well known, or at least the person reverting has reason to oppose the change. Therefore the revert can and should be accompanied with a clarification of which it is. If commentary on the talk page or elsewhere clearly shows consensus is in opposition, then point it out. If there is no such evidence, then at least explain why you oppose it so those reasons can be discussed. Either is helpful. But simply asserting "no consensus" is not helpful; at all.This again is central to what our dispute was about at WP:AT which is a subject of this Arbcom case. There, you, Noetica and Tony repeatedly reverted the Kotniski wording without either establishing that consensus opposed it (indeed the opposite was true), or explaining what your substantive objection to it was. That's not building consensus. That's not behaving in collegial manner at all. That's the problem, and you and Noetica obviously still don't get it. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 03:47, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
As a (relatively) disinterested onlooker, I can't help thinking that this continuing argumentation, days after the arbitration case was closed, is both hilarious and deeply sad, and itself disruptive. I'm convinced that this unstoppable squabbling serves only to undermine your own theses, and I suspect that if I were an arbitrator here I would be inclined to block each of you for insisting on continuing with this. Milkunderwood ( talk) 03:04, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
|
I'm not sure what the protocol is here, but I somehow missed this question from Jclemens and would like to answer it now. It was asked at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation/Workshop#Only_revert_for_substantive_reasons.
What's the justification for this? In the BRD cycle, while it might be best practice for the reverting editor to explain himself, the burden is really on the one making the contested change to justify it after being reverted. Jclemens ( talk) 07:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
The situation I'm talking about is where the person making the change has justified it on the talk page (in this particular case, simultaneous to making the change, exactly as BRD recommends - "Try to make the edit and its explanation simultaneous"), but those opposed to the change revert, and then don't engage in substantive discussion about their objection. What then?
So, yes, the one making the change has the burden, but once that burden has been met, don't the reverters have some burden too? If not, then we pave the way for status quo stonewalling, which is what occurred at WP:AT, succeeding for over a month despite overwhelming consensus support for the change in question.
I hope that answers your question, as it is central to the problem here, in my view. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 22:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's not that the reasons for the revert were not clearly stated, just that you considered them "non-substantive". And you have to discount quite a few editors's objections before you can get to the "overwhelming consensus" that you claim. If I recall correctly, there were about 9 objecting editors by the end, even if we started with only 3.
Dicklyon (
talk) 00:47, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- The only "objections" were procedural (i.e., non-substantive), based on the argument that changes shouldn't be made that affect an ongoing dispute. Never mind that the "dispute" in question was so minor as to be inconsequential (it was a discussion at
WP:AT about one article's title and its recent unilateral move and revert), and that the policy wording "change" in question was actually restoration of longstanding language that was clearly removed inadvertently (or with so little conviction that none of those involved in the removal - a wording simplification effort - and the discussion about it bothered to weigh in about it even though they were notified about the revert of their removal).
There were zero non-procedural objections from the outset, and zero objections of any kind in Greg's poll about the same language a few weeks later.
AFAIK, no evidence of 9 objections was submitted in this case, nor even exists. Did I miss something? If there were 9 (or so) objections, why would Elen declare that a revert of the restoration of that wording would be seen as edit warring? If there was that kind of objection to it, I would have backed off from the outset. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 01:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
- The only "objections" were procedural (i.e., non-substantive), based on the argument that changes shouldn't be made that affect an ongoing dispute. Never mind that the "dispute" in question was so minor as to be inconsequential (it was a discussion at
WP:AT about one article's title and its recent unilateral move and revert), and that the policy wording "change" in question was actually restoration of longstanding language that was clearly removed inadvertently (or with so little conviction that none of those involved in the removal - a wording simplification effort - and the discussion about it bothered to weigh in about it even though they were notified about the revert of their removal).
New evidence of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior by Dicklyon
| This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I think new evidence of battleground behavior by Dicklyon is relevant to this case because I believe I was originally reverted by Dicklyon
[5] at
WP:AT due to battleground behavior.
WP:BATTLEGROUND says: In addition to avoiding battles in discussions, do not make changes to content or policies just to prove a point to someone with whom you disagree. I believe I was originally reverted at
WP:AT by Dicklyon et al just for them "to prove a point to someone [me] with whom [they] disagree". That's difficult to prove, of course, but Dick's continued behavior shows a pattern. I believe he might not be aware of this. So, here's the new evidence. First, some background. There has been an ongoing RM discussion at Talk:Republic of China about moving it to Taiwan. The proposal was made on Feb 17. I contributed for the first time on March 4 as Support !vote #31 [6]. Before I contributed my !vote, I read the discussion, and noted that the vast majority of Support votes were based on WP:COMMONNAME, and that many of the oppose votes discounted the applicability of WP:COMMONNAME to this case (but, notably, not because they felt COMMONNAME applied equally to both names). I too based my !vote on COMMONNAME, and it was and remains my only contribution and comment to the discussion. In addition, I thought it was a case that might be of interest to some other editors who watch WP:AT, so I added a notice about it to WT:AT accordingly [7], characterizing it as a test case for COMMONNAME. I added that notice at 13:04, March 4, 2012. I had no intention of starting a discussion about this at WT:AT; it was just an FYI notice. But, to my surprise, within a few hours, at 16:36, Dicklyon did comment, taking issue with my characterization [8], arguing that it's not a good test case for common name since both names are common, and thus equally supportable by COMMONNAME. If someone else had made this point would he have responded the way he did? I don't think so, and I'm not the only one. N-HH ( talk · contribs) thought something similar in that he wrote, "But don't let (lack of) evidence get in the way of your taking sides in a dispute that you by your own admission know nothing about, simply on the basis it seems, not for the first time in my experience, of who you find on the one or other side of it (if you know nothing, how are you so sure "both names are very common"?)" [9]. But, whatever. We discussed it back and forth [10], others explained why it was a common name issue, and I figured that was that. But today I noted Dicklyon also commented about me at the RM discussion [11]. While he started with a general statement objecting "to those who claim it must be moved to satisfy WP:COMMONNAME", he continued with a direct attack on me: " the idea that the "most common" name has to be used has been pushed by one editor in particular ( User:Born2cycle), often against a lot of pushback." Now, again, I was support !vote #31. Of the 30 who !voted prior to me, 22 mentioned "common" in a context meaning common name, and most of those explicitly referenced WP:COMMONNAME. Most of the !votes refer to common name. No way did I make this about common name. The community obviously sees it that way. Dicklyon is in a minority (perhaps of one) that disagrees, but what does any of this have to do with me? I don't know what he means by "often against a lot of pushback" (unless he's referring to pushback from him), but I do know saying it was entirely inappropriate in this context. I mean, what is the point of isolating me in a negative light in an ocean of editors essentially making the same argument before I did? Isn't this kind of non sequitur attack on another editor with whom he has a history of disagreement the epitome of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior? Isn't the revert that started all this back on Dec 21 another example of this that lead to over a month of disruption on that page? For what? So he could revert an edit with practically unanimous consensus support simply because I made it? Am I out of line here? I really think he has a battleground issue with me that he might not be aware of. Any suggestions on how I might get him to stop battling me and start collaborating? By the way, suggestions that involve discussing this with him on his talk page won't work because attempts to work things out with him in the past have resulted in him asking me to stay off his talk page [12]. I know it's after the evidence and workshop deadlines, but can relevant evidence like this still be considered by Arbcom since it materialized during the case? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 06:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Point of orderI believe that a point of order may be appropriate here. I am now utterly confused as to the respective roles of the 'Evidence' and 'Workshop' pages. I thought that I had had a clear enough notion to begin with, in that 'Evidence' is focussed on identifying the problem and 'Workshop' is where potential solutions are developed through analysis of the Evidence and further discussion. But it now seems that either I have misunderstood the rules, or there is some abuse of the system taking place. B2C was late in submitting his 'evidence', and now, though the workshop phase was supposedly over, it's still going on like a ferocious tie-breaker is being fought, with exactly more of the battleground mentality and verbosity that seem to underly the entire case. Should not the correct action be to lock this section down as being past its sell-by date and an unproductive and a waste of time to boot? -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 11:25, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
This is the kind of "response" that drives me nuts. As if? Which of my assertions are not true?
Do you not agree with any of this? -- Born2cycle ( talk) 21:32, 11 March 2012 (UTC) |
- Closed a thread that was not of significant value to this case.
AGK
[•] 22:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm so confused. If new evidence of ongoing behavior of the kind that caused the problems in this case in the first place, and discussion about that, is not "of significant value to this case", what are we doing here? --
Born2cycle (
talk) 03:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't say the issue is not of value to the case. I am saying that the discussion between you and Ohconfucius was a distraction from the case, and therefore served no value. For my part, by the time a dispute comes to arbitration I'm not very interested in what the parties have to say to one another.
AGK
[•] 12:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I just wanted to make an observation; I wasn't looking for a discussion with B2C on the issue, and was annoyed that he kept on keeping on. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 15:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't say the issue is not of value to the case. I am saying that the discussion between you and Ohconfucius was a distraction from the case, and therefore served no value. For my part, by the time a dispute comes to arbitration I'm not very interested in what the parties have to say to one another.
AGK
[•] 12:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm so confused. If new evidence of ongoing behavior of the kind that caused the problems in this case in the first place, and discussion about that, is not "of significant value to this case", what are we doing here? --
Born2cycle (
talk) 03:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is the issue I would like to see Arbcom address. There is evidence submitted for all of this:
- I made a relatively simple edit restoring the so-called Kotniski wording on the recognizability wording of WP:AT on Dec 21.
- I had good reason to believe this was consistent with consensus - and I explained all this on the talk page simultaneous to making the edit
- Despite all my efforts, the edit was reverted, but those reverting gave no reason to revert other than because I made the edit. Dicklyon even admitted to not reading the explanation prior to reverting.
- I and others tried to revert the reverts since the reverters provided no substantive reason to revert. But they reverted us again.
- Everyone else who chimed in supported the edit and explained why.
- Eventually the page was locked at the version without the Kotniski wording
- The "discussion" went on for over a month, the entire time the antagonists never participating substantively.
- Eventually there was a poll that showed, again, even more clearly than before, unanimous community support in favor of the Kotniski wording
- Finally, over a month later, under threat of block by Elen, the edit was made and no longer reverted
It would be one thing if that month of churn had some substantive discussion about the merits of the edit, and we had worked it out. But that wasn't the case at all. Those reverting -- Dicklyon, Tony1, and Noetica -- never submitted alternative wording, nor presented an argument against the Kotniski wording. It was all smoke and mirrors, for over a month. Kotniski became so frustrated with their behavior that he quit WP.
I too find this to be intolerable. If that wasn't disruption, nothing is. This is exactly the kind of baloney that is driving editors away.
Thanks. -- Born2cycle ( talk) 02:48, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- Since we’re talking “nutshells,” here’s my 2¢ on this: Here in my city, some off-duty cop was driving drunk, hit someone, and then fled the scene. He was fired by the police. And he sued for back wages and damages, claiming that job stress led to his alcoholism, the city ignored his alcoholism, did nothing to treat him, alcoholism is a disability, the city must accommodate him with his disability, (yadda-yadda, political correctness ad nauseam, etcetera). Some sort of “Feel good about yourself” state committee backed him in his pursuit of scads of money. After a public outcry, the city council nixed the proposed settlement. During the debate over this (a unanimous decision), a city councilman said this:
| “ | Sometimes when you are losing, you have to know when to fold and walk away from the table. But on matters of principle, you fight until Hell freezes over… and then you fight on the ice. | ” |
- Dicklyon simply wanted his way and I am convinced he knew full well that he was simply playing a game of attrition whereby protracted intransigence was driving others away (or making them cave in exasperation) and if he could only overcome one last obstacle (Born2cycle), Dicklyon would finally get his way.
- Born2cycle on the other hand, was upholding the principle of “consensus” (it is, after all, enshrined at WP:Five pillars) and was willing to fight on the ice after Hell froze over. It takes two however, to fight on the ice and Dicklyon was clearly the other one—his “slice things differently” poll being a prime example. Born2cycle also didn’t seem to understand that *pithy* posts on Wikipedia are generally more effective than lengthy and detailed ones.
- Were it me, I’d merely ask the combatants if they’ve learned a lesson from any of this. Accept apologies, shoot any bastard who wants to keep mixing it up, and put an end to this. Greg L ( talk) 00:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- The larger problem is that the idea of attrition against consensus establishment at the MOS pages (recognizing that TITLE isn't MOS but the editor overlap is undeniable) is what started date delinking, and appears to exist through this day. (And to prevent echos of my previous comments on this, there are *so* many people involved, on both sides, in a manner that otherwise barely tickles any behavioral response issues that this is not to call out any specific person or group, but to recognize this has become a norm on certain MOS aspects). This is not to call what B2C and Dicklyon did as unactionable, but everyone that works on pages like MOS that have wide impact need to recognize that they aren't scripture and holding one's own (whether through attrition or demanding some type of consensus to be set) is harmful in the long run for something that is meant to be a guide. In other words, it is not the decision specifically about TITLE that should be considered the core of this case, but how such behavior in the long term is harmful to the MOS in general even if it is impossible to point specific problems with specific people, and how editors can figure out how to resolve it. -- MASEM ( t) 01:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Awwwwe… clever you, Masem. I think you can do better than suggest that “date delinking” is responsible for all modern instances on en.Wikipedia MOS where crops wither, midwives weep, and pestilence and plague spreads across the land. Try again. As can be seen at RfCs such as
this Date Linking RfC, a herculean effort was made to discern consensus and maximum effort expended to gain widespread input from the community. A bit of advise, MASEM: It’s been nearly four years since “date delinking”; if you try not to dredge up ancient and exceedingly tangential business and shoehorn it into an entirely different situation, your words might carry additional weight.
Greg L (
talk) 03:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Let me be clear: Date delinking wasn't the start of the problems, but it was an epitome of the problems that have only been intensifying on MOS related pages. I'm not considering the actual aspects of date delinking, only the behaviors that lead to the case. It's important to identity date delinking as related to this if only to avoid having to re-iterate the typical atmosphere of the MOS talk pages. It is not that the same people from date delinking are central to this case here, only that the same general trends in attitudes on both (or multiple) sides of the arguments continue to rear their heads at MOS-related pages. Arbcom at Date Delinking, however, made no attempt to correct across all of MOS, only on the issue of DD; the decisions suggested here to date are at least indicative of the larger problem of MOS beyond just TITLE. -- MASEM ( t) 05:38, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Awwwwe… clever you, Masem. I think you can do better than suggest that “date delinking” is responsible for all modern instances on en.Wikipedia MOS where crops wither, midwives weep, and pestilence and plague spreads across the land. Try again. As can be seen at RfCs such as
this Date Linking RfC, a herculean effort was made to discern consensus and maximum effort expended to gain widespread input from the community. A bit of advise, MASEM: It’s been nearly four years since “date delinking”; if you try not to dredge up ancient and exceedingly tangential business and shoehorn it into an entirely different situation, your words might carry additional weight.
Greg L (
talk) 03:37, 22 March 2012 (UTC)